What does this letter say? Does it argue that the PhRMA language is better for America than the Waxman language? Does it say it will cost taxpayers less and provide cheaper drugs to more people? Hilariously, no. What it says is that this PhRMA language, while worse than the Waxman language, is not quite so bad as you think (it doesn’t save as much as the Waxman language, but it still has a 50 percent price reduction, which isn’t terrible!). Moreover, the letter says, substituting this language will help the bill get passed!

We have noted with interest President Obama’s and the AARP’s support of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus’ announcement that he plans to include his Committee’s health reform legislation that will provide a 50 percent discount to most Medicare beneficiaries on brand-name medicines when purchased in the coverage gap, or "doughnut hole."

Like the President, we believe that as we discuss providing coverage for the uninsured, it is also critical that we make needed improvements in current coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, we must address their high out-of-pocket drug costs in the Part D doughnut hole. Providing relief to seniors in the doughnut hole has been a priority for Democrats since the enactment of the Part D drug benefit, because research has shown that the gap in coverage often forces them to go without medicines and results in worse health outcomes.

Your efforts to remove this onerous burden on Medicare beneficiaries and their families in the recently unveiled health reform legislation discussion draft are to be greatly commended. However, the commitment by President Obama and AARP to support legislation that would provide a 50 percent price reduction is a dramatic step forward in helping fill the doughnut hole. Equally important, it moves us toward our goal of health reform legislation — to make sure all Americans have access to good, affordable health coverage.

We urge you to substitute the President’s proposal in your health reform legislation discussion draft. Not only would it deliver immediate savings to seniors, instead of slowly phasing out the doughnut hole over 10 years, it would not require the federal government to raise additional revenue, as is the case in the draft legislation This is important because as recently as December 2008 the Congressional Budget Office warned that expansion of drug price controls in Medicare Part D could result in potentially higher premiums for seniors.

We thank you for your diligence in these matters and we look forward to working together on these issues.

As Taibbi notes, the letter did not appear on either Shuler’s or Halvorson’s website, so they must not have been particularly proud of it.

Donald Payne, Bennie Thompson, Eric Massa, Andre Carson, William Lacy Clay, Albio Sires and Corrine Brown are members of the Progressive Caucus and also signed the letter saying that they would vote against any bill that does not have a public option. It will be interesting to see if they sign on to the letter being circulated as part Rep. Grijalva’s whip count effort this week.

Jane Hamsher

Jane is the founder of Firedoglake.com. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect. She’s the author of the best selling book Killer Instinct and has produced such films Natural Born Killers and Permanent Midnight. She lives in Washington DC.Subscribe in a reader